Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[K9Buck]

Running off to another state to shoot people is IN NO WAY fucking "self-defense".

Do you have evidence that this is what Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to do? You might find his carrying of the rifle to be misguided, or stupid, as well as illegal, but it doesn't mean he went there with the intent of shooting anyone. People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone.

Your arguments here all seem to follow the assumption that Rittenhouse intended to shoot people, but I haven't seen anything as of yet to lead to that conclusion.

Of course ,if it's really necessary to state the obvioius.

1) the kid lives in Illinois.​

2) he intentionally leaves Illinois and goes to Wisconsin;​

3) before he does that he prepares by (illegally) acquiring an assault rifle;​

4) assault rifles are used for shooting people;​

5) once in Wisconsin, he intentionally goes, with above assault weapon, right to the site of a civil unrest event.​

He's not there to buy ice cream. Again it's exactly the same MO as James Fields in Charlottesville, the difference being there are things besides running over people that you can do with a car and Fields probably didn't premeditate it.

My counterquestion would be, where is there any evidence that he went there for some other purpose?

And I disagree with the premise, "People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone". If you're carrying a gun, that's what it's for. If you don't intend to shoot it, there's no point in carrying it.

I've always found you to be fairly reasonable, but this argument is pretty silly. There is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. If everyone who carries a gun is intending to shoot it, why aren't there millions of shootings every day?
I'll put it another way. Someone with a severe allergy might carry an epinephrine shot with them. That doesn't mean they intend to inject themselves with it, it means they are prepared to inject themselves with it if necessary. If anything, the person likely would hope to never have to use it. As far as I know the vast majority of people who carry a gun at some point never shoot at anyone. I hope that most never want to shoot at someone. They carry the gun in case they ever need to shoot at someone.

1) I agree
2) I agree
3) According to this report, the gun was actually bought the summer before the shooting and was kept in Wisconsin: Friend who bought rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shooting charged
Still illegal for him to possess it, perhaps, but not following the chain of events you describe
4) While true, assault rifles (or just rifles, as assault rifle is often a somewhat ambiguous term) can be used to shoot all manner or things, not just people
5) I agree

None of what you listed shows that Rittenhouse intended to shoot anyone. He could have intended it, but he could merely have been prepared for it. As you pointed out, he went into the site of civil unrest. As such, it's reasonable to think a person would want some way to defend themself against any potential danger. It may have been a stupid choice, but it does not show an intent to shoot someone.

Unless you are going to argue that anything a person carries, that person must intend to use wherever they go, your argument of intent seems entirely based on assumptions with little or no evidence. Having a gun =\= planning to use that gun.

Pogo is an idiot, but it is nonetheless charitable of you to try to help a moron to understand. Unfortunately, this discussion is well beyond his ability.

 

[K9Buck]

Yuh HUH.

Diga me Tonto, what the fuck kind of "first aid" can you "provide" with a fucking AR15?

Dumbass.

Say cheesebreath, if the hospital can extract your head from your anterior canal notice that I didn't ask anything about anybody's fucking "RIGHT to be there". I asked what the fuck his PURPOSE was. I can see why you can't handle it.

"Violent joe [sic] biden [sic] voters"
Most ironic line since Donovan's "violent hash smoker".

Are you on some sort of drugs, boy?

No, he's just slow.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC

Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.

www.bucherlawgroup.com

Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

He breaking WI gun laws.

So why don't you think he should be severely punished?

No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)

 

[K9Buck]

If the woman didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have been there.

Signed,

Leftist "logic"

 

[K9Buck]

Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC

Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.

www.bucherlawgroup.com

Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

He breaking WI gun laws.

So why don't you think he should be severely punished?

No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)

Truth and laws don't matter to the loving-left, only the narrative.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Pogo is an idiot, but it is nonetheless charitable of you to try to help a moron to understand. Unfortunately, this discussion is well beyond his ability.

Pogo is not merely an idiot. Pogo is malicious and probably deserved terminal cancer.

 

[Montrovant]

Running off to another state to shoot people is IN NO WAY fucking "self-defense".

Do you have evidence that this is what Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to do? You might find his carrying of the rifle to be misguided, or stupid, as well as illegal, but it doesn't mean he went there with the intent of shooting anyone. People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone.

Your arguments here all seem to follow the assumption that Rittenhouse intended to shoot people, but I haven't seen anything as of yet to lead to that conclusion.

Of course ,if it's really necessary to state the obvioius.

1) the kid lives in Illinois.​

2) he intentionally leaves Illinois and goes to Wisconsin;​

3) before he does that he prepares by (illegally) acquiring an assault rifle;​

4) assault rifles are used for shooting people;​

5) once in Wisconsin, he intentionally goes, with above assault weapon, right to the site of a civil unrest event.​

He's not there to buy ice cream. Again it's exactly the same MO as James Fields in Charlottesville, the difference being there are things besides running over people that you can do with a car and Fields probably didn't premeditate it.

My counterquestion would be, where is there any evidence that he went there for some other purpose?

And I disagree with the premise, "People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone". If you're carrying a gun, that's what it's for. If you don't intend to shoot it, there's no point in carrying it.

I've always found you to be fairly reasonable, but this argument is pretty silly. There is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. If everyone who carries a gun is intending to shoot it, why aren't there millions of shootings every day?
I'll put it another way. Someone with a severe allergy might carry an epinephrine shot with them. That doesn't mean they intend to inject themselves with it, it means they are prepared to inject themselves with it if necessary. If anything, the person likely would hope to never have to use it. As far as I know the vast majority of people who carry a gun at some point never shoot at anyone. I hope that most never want to shoot at someone. They carry the gun in case they ever need to shoot at someone.

1) I agree
2) I agree
3) According to this report, the gun was actually bought the summer before the shooting and was kept in Wisconsin: Friend who bought rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shooting charged
Still illegal for him to possess it, perhaps, but not following the chain of events you describe
4) While true, assault rifles (or just rifles, as assault rifle is often a somewhat ambiguous term) can be used to shoot all manner or things, not just people
5) I agree

None of what you listed shows that Rittenhouse intended to shoot anyone. He could have intended it, but he could merely have been prepared for it. As you pointed out, he went into the site of civil unrest. As such, it's reasonable to think a person would want some way to defend themself against any potential danger. It may have been a stupid choice, but it does not show an intent to shoot someone.

Unless you are going to argue that anything a person carries, that person must intend to use wherever they go, your argument of intent seems entirely based on assumptions with little or no evidence. Having a gun =\= planning to use that gun.

Pogo is an idiot, but it is nonetheless charitable of you to try to help a moron to understand. Unfortunately, this discussion is well beyond his ability.

Based on my interactions with him, Pogo is far from an idiot. I think he’s making a very weak argument here regarding intent, but I doubt it’s based on a lack of intelligence.

 

[Montrovant]

Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC

Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.

www.bucherlawgroup.com

Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

He breaking WI gun laws.

So why don't you think he should be severely punished?

No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)

Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.

 

[K9Buck]

Running off to another state to shoot people is IN NO WAY fucking "self-defense".

Do you have evidence that this is what Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to do? You might find his carrying of the rifle to be misguided, or stupid, as well as illegal, but it doesn't mean he went there with the intent of shooting anyone. People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone.

Your arguments here all seem to follow the assumption that Rittenhouse intended to shoot people, but I haven't seen anything as of yet to lead to that conclusion.

Of course ,if it's really necessary to state the obvioius.

1) the kid lives in Illinois.​

2) he intentionally leaves Illinois and goes to Wisconsin;​

3) before he does that he prepares by (illegally) acquiring an assault rifle;​

4) assault rifles are used for shooting people;​

5) once in Wisconsin, he intentionally goes, with above assault weapon, right to the site of a civil unrest event.​

He's not there to buy ice cream. Again it's exactly the same MO as James Fields in Charlottesville, the difference being there are things besides running over people that you can do with a car and Fields probably didn't premeditate it.

My counterquestion would be, where is there any evidence that he went there for some other purpose?

And I disagree with the premise, "People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone". If you're carrying a gun, that's what it's for. If you don't intend to shoot it, there's no point in carrying it.

I've always found you to be fairly reasonable, but this argument is pretty silly. There is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. If everyone who carries a gun is intending to shoot it, why aren't there millions of shootings every day?
I'll put it another way. Someone with a severe allergy might carry an epinephrine shot with them. That doesn't mean they intend to inject themselves with it, it means they are prepared to inject themselves with it if necessary. If anything, the person likely would hope to never have to use it. As far as I know the vast majority of people who carry a gun at some point never shoot at anyone. I hope that most never want to shoot at someone. They carry the gun in case they ever need to shoot at someone.

1) I agree
2) I agree
3) According to this report, the gun was actually bought the summer before the shooting and was kept in Wisconsin: Friend who bought rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shooting charged
Still illegal for him to possess it, perhaps, but not following the chain of events you describe
4) While true, assault rifles (or just rifles, as assault rifle is often a somewhat ambiguous term) can be used to shoot all manner or things, not just people
5) I agree

None of what you listed shows that Rittenhouse intended to shoot anyone. He could have intended it, but he could merely have been prepared for it. As you pointed out, he went into the site of civil unrest. As such, it's reasonable to think a person would want some way to defend themself against any potential danger. It may have been a stupid choice, but it does not show an intent to shoot someone.

Unless you are going to argue that anything a person carries, that person must intend to use wherever they go, your argument of intent seems entirely based on assumptions with little or no evidence. Having a gun =\= planning to use that gun.

Pogo is an idiot, but it is nonetheless charitable of you to try to help a moron to understand. Unfortunately, this discussion is well beyond his ability.

Based on my interactions with him, Pogo is far from an idiot. I think he’s making a very weak argument here regarding intent, but I doubt it’s based on a lack of intelligence.

Really? Ok. Lol!

 

[Pogo]

Running off to another state to shoot people is IN NO WAY fucking "self-defense".

Do you have evidence that this is what Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to do? You might find his carrying of the rifle to be misguided, or stupid, as well as illegal, but it doesn't mean he went there with the intent of shooting anyone. People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone.

Your arguments here all seem to follow the assumption that Rittenhouse intended to shoot people, but I haven't seen anything as of yet to lead to that conclusion.

Of course ,if it's really necessary to state the obvioius.

1) the kid lives in Illinois.​

2) he intentionally leaves Illinois and goes to Wisconsin;​

3) before he does that he prepares by (illegally) acquiring an assault rifle;​

4) assault rifles are used for shooting people;​

5) once in Wisconsin, he intentionally goes, with above assault weapon, right to the site of a civil unrest event.​

He's not there to buy ice cream. Again it's exactly the same MO as James Fields in Charlottesville, the difference being there are things besides running over people that you can do with a car and Fields probably didn't premeditate it.

My counterquestion would be, where is there any evidence that he went there for some other purpose?

And I disagree with the premise, "People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone". If you're carrying a gun, that's what it's for. If you don't intend to shoot it, there's no point in carrying it.

I've always found you to be fairly reasonable, but this argument is pretty silly. There is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. If everyone who carries a gun is intending to shoot it, why aren't there millions of shootings every day?
I'll put it another way. Someone with a severe allergy might carry an epinephrine shot with them. That doesn't mean they intend to inject themselves with it, it means they are prepared to inject themselves with it if necessary. If anything, the person likely would hope to never have to use it. As far as I know the vast majority of people who carry a gun at some point never shoot at anyone. I hope that most never want to shoot at someone. They carry the gun in case they ever need to shoot at someone.

1) I agree
2) I agree
3) According to this report, the gun was actually bought the summer before the shooting and was kept in Wisconsin: Friend who bought rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shooting charged
Still illegal for him to possess it, perhaps, but not following the chain of events you describe
4) While true, assault rifles (or just rifles, as assault rifle is often a somewhat ambiguous term) can be used to shoot all manner or things, not just people
5) I agree

None of what you listed shows that Rittenhouse intended to shoot anyone. He could have intended it, but he could merely have been prepared for it. As you pointed out, he went into the site of civil unrest. As such, it's reasonable to think a person would want some way to defend themself against any potential danger. It may have been a stupid choice, but it does not show an intent to shoot someone.

Unless you are going to argue that anything a person carries, that person must intend to use wherever they go, your argument of intent seems entirely based on assumptions with little or no evidence. Having a gun =\= planning to use that gun.

C'mon man.

You go get an assault gun --- which you don't have to do.
You take it, on purpose, to a site of civil unrest --- which again, is a place you didn't have to go.
I mean do the friggin' math. If I don a baseball cap and glove and walk toward the stadium an hour before game time, is it not a logical assumption that I'm going to the game? This kid went to another state. With an illegal gun. To a place known to be in chaos -- which serves as opportunity to get away with it. As I said it's far more credible to suggest that James Fields did not go to Charlottesville with the specific intent of running people down in the street.

I don't know anything about epinephrine (sp?) but again firearms have one and only one purpose. What would be the point of walking around with one without that purpose in mind? It would be extra baggage. Extra weight too. Let alone an illegal one.

I carry for instance my wallet everywhere, not just to have the documentation to drive but because I know I'll use it in myriad ways. On the other hand I rarely carry my phone unless I'm specifically going to need to call somebody.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Are you suggesting that Rittenhouse's possession of that rifle was legal?

Actually, it quite likely was.

There's not a single thing I've found which would support the idea that Rittenhouse legally possessed the rifle he had.

Do you have a link to something which would explain how his possession of it was legal?

 

[Turtlesoup]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........


Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and your ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/ would be victim to keep pressing the weapon's trigger.........that and cops have said for years that if you shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Did Rittenhouse have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.

From what the lawyer in question said...while certainly intended for hunters, that isn't actually part of the wording.

 

[Pogo]

Yuh HUH.

Diga me Tonto, what the fuck kind of "first aid" can you "provide" with a fucking AR15?

Dumbass.

Say cheesebreath, if the hospital can extract your head from your anterior canal notice that I didn't ask anything about anybody's fucking "RIGHT to be there". I asked what the fuck his PURPOSE was. I can see why you can't handle it.

"Violent joe [sic] biden [sic] voters"
Most ironic line since Donovan's "violent hash smoker".

Are you on some sort of drugs, boy?

Are you? Yanno what I can't remember when I last read a post of yours that had any substance at all.
If ever.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There's not a single thing I've found which would support the idea that Rittenhouse legally possessed the rifle he had.

Do you have a link to something which would explain how his possession of it was legal?

Yes, but you'll ignore it.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...

As a combat Vet, I assure you, I have.

Kyle Rittenhouse, on the other hand , never has...

and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons...

This is fase.

Please educate yourself...

 

[Faun]

True, he didn't carry from Illinois to Wisconsin, but he didn't borrow it. He bought it. He couldn't purchase it legally because he was under 18, so he gave the money to a friend who purchased for him. That friend has since been charged for doing that. Rittenhouse then carried the gun across state lines upon returning to Illinois.

Let me guess. You want "Rittenhouse" to be executed or receive life in prison, correct? Rittenhouse was obligated to be beaten into a coma or worse, right?

If he didn't want to go to prison, he shouldn't have murdered anyone.

So he was obligated to allow himself to beaten to death, right?

There's no evidence he was going to be beaten to death had he not shot anyone.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you? Yanno what I can't remember when I last read a post of yours that had any substance at all.
If ever.

That's just a side effect of your mental illness...your brain cannot process most substance, so you skim over it, comprehending nothing. For treatment, I recommend a prefrontal with a rusty nail.

 

[Faun]

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...

As a combat Vet, I assure you, I have.

Kyle Rittenhouse, on the other hand , never has...

and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons...

This is fase.

Please educate yourself...

Thank you for your service.

 

[Canon Shooter]

There's not a single thing I've found which would support the idea that Rittenhouse legally possessed the rifle he had.

Do you have a link to something which would explain how his possession of it was legal?

Yes, but you'll ignore it.

So you have nothing.

Got it...